Page 1 of 1

A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:52 am
by uberhikari
Since the discussion in the back half of this thread I've been thinking a lot more about Ben Taylor's concepts of portability and scalability. So, I went back to his Backpicks GOAT list to understand why he still had Jordan ahead of LeBron in 2018.

Due to retirements or injury, Jordan only had 11 quality years including his rookie season. 1985, 1987-1993, and 1996-1998.

By 2018, when Ben Taylor made his Backpicks list LeBron had 14 quality seasons (not including the 2018 playoffs): 2005-2018

My question is this: Why did Ben Taylor think Jordan's 11 seasons were worth more than 3 extra prime LeBron seasons?

In his write-up Taylor said stuff like this:

Instead, James is the greatest floor-raiser in NBA history, able to do more with spare parts than anyone ever by simultaneously bolstering an offense while upgrading the defense.


The best four-year offenses in NBA history have finished about 7 points ahead of the league. At full-strength, Nash’s Suns were nearly 10 points better from 2005-08, although they were small-balling lineups at the expense of defense. LeBron’s teams downsized at times too, and his best full-strength four-year offense was +8.1 (2013-16), in the upper stratosphere historically.


James is, arguably, the king of overall plus-minus stats. 2018 is the 25th season of league-wide plus-minus data, which covers nearly 40 percent of the shot-clock era and touches 12 of the top-20 players on this list. None have achieved LeBron’s heights: He holds four of the top-five scaled APM seasons on record, and six of the top eight. Since 2007, 10 of his 11 years land in the 99th percentile.


Of course, James also ranks among the box score titans, tallying points like a pinball machine while playing quarterback. (A style approximated by James Harden today.) His statistical peak came in his original Cleveland days, hybridizing Magic-like table-setting with Jordan’s scoring. Only Steph Curry’s three-year regular season peak covers more real estate on the Big 4 box diamond featured in this series. In the postseason, LeBron’s Cleveland numbers trailed only Jordan, and his line in Miami matched Curry’s efficiency:


I keep invoking Nash, another ball-dominant engine like James, but LeBron is different in a handful of ways. Both have generated excellent results surrounded by shooters and pick-and-roll dance partners, but James maintains greater value next to other ball-dominant players (like Wade and Irving) thanks to his post game, offensive rebounding and thunderous cuts to the rim. This is a versatility advantage that makes LeBron a more valuable player in a wider variety of lineups and roles, which in turn makes him slightly more scalable (because better teams often come with other on-ball stars).


In total, Jordan is the only comparable perimeter peak in history, although James’s defense was slightly more impressive at its apex. Eight of LeBron’s last nine seasons are all-time level campaigns, pairing either good or great defense with transcendent offense.


So, to summarize: James is the greatest floor-raiser, he's also a historic ceiling-raiser, he's a king of overall plus-minus and box score stats, he's scalable + portable because of his ability to fit in a wide variety of contexts even with other ball-dominant players, and the only comparable peak is Jordan.

But at the veeery end, Ben Taylor writes this:

In a few weeks, he will likely move to No. 2 on this list. If I had fewer reservations about his ball-dominance scaling (and his lack of spot-up shooting), he’d be a spot higher already, and I do think he has an outside argument as the highest-peak player in NBA history.


Ben Taylor can't really be saying that his concern about LeBron's spot-up shooting means that 14 prime LeBron seasons brings his value down below 11 prime Jordan seasons...right?

What am I missing here?

I'm not interested in the GOAT debate. I don't have a GOAT, only a list of GOAT candidates. I'm only interested in understanding Ben Taylor's methodology.

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:53 am
by 70sFan
Before all the mind readers show up, I would suggest to just contact Ben online. He's not that hard to get in touch and he's always a nice man in conversations.

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:38 am
by zimpy27
You should listen to the thinking basketball podcast. A few months ago he actually updated this list.

LeBron is now number 1 on his list for career and number 2 for greatest 8-year peak (Jordan number 1)

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/151-top-40-careers-the-goat-candidates/id1428290303?i=1000582660395

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:10 am
by eminence
By my understanding Ben wasn’t yet including any of 2018 in the project. Combined with counting ‘86 and ‘95 relatively highly (Ben is high on playoff availability) and it was honestly pretty close to 13 vs 13 seasons he was evaluating.

With him higher on peak/prime MJ not surprising at all to me he had MJ higher at that point.

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:19 pm
by rk2023
I think it's important to re-iterate 70sFan's point about not looking to make this a mind-reading game.

I do think as well that from a basketball philosophy point, this take (from someone who's seen the older-published "CORP" evals) could be catalyzed due to the view of having over 3 of Jordan's years over James' Miami apex - while being somewhat lower on surrounding years in Cleveland. Those evaluations have changed since, being higher on first stint Cleveland and James' peak - having it much closer to Jordan's this time around (as one who, again, has seen the "CORP" re-evaluations after his greatest peak(s) series). Such a somewhat more favorable view from a career ladder and "value-added" perspective would perhaps yield a #2 ranking in 2016 or 17 instead, which is more or less the camp that I am in.

Don't really have much further to say, as I feel that viewing James' scalability as more favorable (great points brought fourth by many in the "Kawhi vs. LeBron on defense" thread) and getting a little higher on his aggregate value are takes that empirical impact data/signals point towards more-so. Perhaps the heavier prevalence of data and impact metrics influenced some change on viewing not only James' but other players' respective primes/careers, but can only speak directly to my own views at the end of the day.

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:34 pm
by magicman1978
That article was written in Dec 2017 so it doesn't factor in the 2018 season yet - that season moves him above Jordan. If you look at the seasonal valuations chart, you may get a better idea of why he still had MJ above LeBron at that point in 2017 (I'm going off memory here, but I believe had Jordan and LeBron with an equal number of MVP level seasons and had Jordan's 3-year peaks a bit higher).

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:14 pm
by OhayoKD
zimpy27 wrote:You should listen to the thinking basketball podcast. A few months ago he actually updated this list.

LeBron is now number 1 on his list for career and number 2 for greatest 8-year peak (Jordan number 1)

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/151-top-40-careers-the-goat-candidates/id1428290303?i=1000582660395

Setting aside him completely dodging the last question, the 8-year bit is pretty baffling.

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:12 pm
by WestGOAT
OhayoKD wrote:
zimpy27 wrote:You should listen to the thinking basketball podcast. A few months ago he actually updated this list.

LeBron is now number 1 on his list for career and number 2 for greatest 8-year peak (Jordan number 1)

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/151-top-40-careers-the-goat-candidates/id1428290303?i=1000582660395

Setting aside him completely dodging the last question, the 8-year bit is pretty baffling.


Can I find this updated top-40 list somewhere online or is it only available on his podcasts?

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:21 pm
by eminence
WestGOAT wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
zimpy27 wrote:You should listen to the thinking basketball podcast. A few months ago he actually updated this list.

LeBron is now number 1 on his list for career and number 2 for greatest 8-year peak (Jordan number 1)

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/151-top-40-careers-the-goat-candidates/id1428290303?i=1000582660395

Setting aside him completely dodging the last question, the 8-year bit is pretty baffling.


Can I find this updated top-40 list somewhere online or is it only available on his podcasts?


I haven’t seen it elsewhere, but transcribed I saw it as:

LeBron
KAJ
MJ
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Wilt
KG
Bird
Magic
Kobe
Karl
Oscar
Dirk
Steph
CP3
West
Robinson
DrJ
KD
Barkley
Nash
Stockton
Moses
Wade
Pippen
Barry
Miller
Harden
Pettit
Hondo
Kidd
Gilmore
Ewing
Pierce
Frazier
Baylor
Thomas
Drexler

8 year peaks (bit of an odd cut-off)
MJ
LeBron
KAJ
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Bird
Wilt
Steph

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:58 pm
by Owly
uberhikari wrote:Since the discussion in the back half of this thread I've been thinking a lot more about Ben Taylor's concepts of portability and scalability. So, I went back to his Backpicks GOAT list to understand why he still had Jordan ahead of LeBron in 2018.

Due to retirements or injury, Jordan only had 11 quality years including his rookie season. 1985, 1987-1993, and 1996-1998.

By 2018, when Ben Taylor made his Backpicks list LeBron had 14 quality seasons (not including the 2018 playoffs): 2005-2018

My question is this: Why did Ben Taylor think Jordan's 11 seasons were worth more than 3 extra prime LeBron seasons?

In his write-up Taylor said stuff like this:

Instead, James is the greatest floor-raiser in NBA history, able to do more with spare parts than anyone ever by simultaneously bolstering an offense while upgrading the defense.


The best four-year offenses in NBA history have finished about 7 points ahead of the league. At full-strength, Nash’s Suns were nearly 10 points better from 2005-08, although they were small-balling lineups at the expense of defense. LeBron’s teams downsized at times too, and his best full-strength four-year offense was +8.1 (2013-16), in the upper stratosphere historically.


James is, arguably, the king of overall plus-minus stats. 2018 is the 25th season of league-wide plus-minus data, which covers nearly 40 percent of the shot-clock era and touches 12 of the top-20 players on this list. None have achieved LeBron’s heights: He holds four of the top-five scaled APM seasons on record, and six of the top eight. Since 2007, 10 of his 11 years land in the 99th percentile.


Of course, James also ranks among the box score titans, tallying points like a pinball machine while playing quarterback. (A style approximated by James Harden today.) His statistical peak came in his original Cleveland days, hybridizing Magic-like table-setting with Jordan’s scoring. Only Steph Curry’s three-year regular season peak covers more real estate on the Big 4 box diamond featured in this series. In the postseason, LeBron’s Cleveland numbers trailed only Jordan, and his line in Miami matched Curry’s efficiency:


I keep invoking Nash, another ball-dominant engine like James, but LeBron is different in a handful of ways. Both have generated excellent results surrounded by shooters and pick-and-roll dance partners, but James maintains greater value next to other ball-dominant players (like Wade and Irving) thanks to his post game, offensive rebounding and thunderous cuts to the rim. This is a versatility advantage that makes LeBron a more valuable player in a wider variety of lineups and roles, which in turn makes him slightly more scalable (because better teams often come with other on-ball stars).


In total, Jordan is the only comparable perimeter peak in history, although James’s defense was slightly more impressive at its apex. Eight of LeBron’s last nine seasons are all-time level campaigns, pairing either good or great defense with transcendent offense.


So, to summarize: James is the greatest floor-raiser, he's also a historic ceiling-raiser, he's a king of overall plus-minus and box score stats, he's scalable + portable because of his ability to fit in a wide variety of contexts even with other ball-dominant players, and the only comparable peak is Jordan.

But at the veeery end, Ben Taylor writes this:

In a few weeks, he will likely move to No. 2 on this list. If I had fewer reservations about his ball-dominance scaling (and his lack of spot-up shooting), he’d be a spot higher already, and I do think he has an outside argument as the highest-peak player in NBA history.


Ben Taylor can't really be saying that his concern about LeBron's spot-up shooting means that 14 prime LeBron seasons brings his value down below 11 prime Jordan seasons...right?

What am I missing here?

I'm not interested in the GOAT debate. I don't have a GOAT, only a list of GOAT candidates. I'm only interested in understanding Ben Taylor's methodology.

I can't speak to Ben's state of mind.

I can say in the section you quoted and adjacent that there are allusions to adding the value of the 2018 season (moving LeBron ahead) and a graph showing no inclusion of 2018.

Thus it would seem to me you are probably looking at 13 prime LeBron seasons.

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:07 pm
by LukaTheGOAT
eminence wrote:
WestGOAT wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:Setting aside him completely dodging the last question, the 8-year bit is pretty baffling.


Can I find this updated top-40 list somewhere online or is it only available on his podcasts?


I haven’t seen it elsewhere, but transcribed I saw it as:

LeBron
KAJ
MJ
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Wilt
KG
Bird
Magic
Kobe
Karl
Oscar
Dirk
Steph
CP3
West
Robinson
DrJ
KD
Barkley
Nash
Stockton
Moses
Wade
Pippen
Barry
Miller
Harden
Pettit
Hondo
Kidd
Gilmore
Ewing
Pierce
Frazier
Baylor
Thomas
Drexler

8 year peaks (bit of an odd cut-off)
MJ
LeBron
KAJ
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Bird
Wilt
Steph


Updated list:

https://thinkingbasketball.net/2017/12/11/the-backpicks-goat-the-40-best-careers-in-nba-history/

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:27 pm
by Owly
Owly wrote:
uberhikari wrote:Since the discussion in the back half of this thread I've been thinking a lot more about Ben Taylor's concepts of portability and scalability. So, I went back to his Backpicks GOAT list to understand why he still had Jordan ahead of LeBron in 2018.

Due to retirements or injury, Jordan only had 11 quality years including his rookie season. 1985, 1987-1993, and 1996-1998.

By 2018, when Ben Taylor made his Backpicks list LeBron had 14 quality seasons (not including the 2018 playoffs): 2005-2018

My question is this: Why did Ben Taylor think Jordan's 11 seasons were worth more than 3 extra prime LeBron seasons?

In his write-up Taylor said stuff like this:

Instead, James is the greatest floor-raiser in NBA history, able to do more with spare parts than anyone ever by simultaneously bolstering an offense while upgrading the defense.


The best four-year offenses in NBA history have finished about 7 points ahead of the league. At full-strength, Nash’s Suns were nearly 10 points better from 2005-08, although they were small-balling lineups at the expense of defense. LeBron’s teams downsized at times too, and his best full-strength four-year offense was +8.1 (2013-16), in the upper stratosphere historically.


James is, arguably, the king of overall plus-minus stats. 2018 is the 25th season of league-wide plus-minus data, which covers nearly 40 percent of the shot-clock era and touches 12 of the top-20 players on this list. None have achieved LeBron’s heights: He holds four of the top-five scaled APM seasons on record, and six of the top eight. Since 2007, 10 of his 11 years land in the 99th percentile.


Of course, James also ranks among the box score titans, tallying points like a pinball machine while playing quarterback. (A style approximated by James Harden today.) His statistical peak came in his original Cleveland days, hybridizing Magic-like table-setting with Jordan’s scoring. Only Steph Curry’s three-year regular season peak covers more real estate on the Big 4 box diamond featured in this series. In the postseason, LeBron’s Cleveland numbers trailed only Jordan, and his line in Miami matched Curry’s efficiency:


I keep invoking Nash, another ball-dominant engine like James, but LeBron is different in a handful of ways. Both have generated excellent results surrounded by shooters and pick-and-roll dance partners, but James maintains greater value next to other ball-dominant players (like Wade and Irving) thanks to his post game, offensive rebounding and thunderous cuts to the rim. This is a versatility advantage that makes LeBron a more valuable player in a wider variety of lineups and roles, which in turn makes him slightly more scalable (because better teams often come with other on-ball stars).


In total, Jordan is the only comparable perimeter peak in history, although James’s defense was slightly more impressive at its apex. Eight of LeBron’s last nine seasons are all-time level campaigns, pairing either good or great defense with transcendent offense.


So, to summarize: James is the greatest floor-raiser, he's also a historic ceiling-raiser, he's a king of overall plus-minus and box score stats, he's scalable + portable because of his ability to fit in a wide variety of contexts even with other ball-dominant players, and the only comparable peak is Jordan.

But at the veeery end, Ben Taylor writes this:

In a few weeks, he will likely move to No. 2 on this list. If I had fewer reservations about his ball-dominance scaling (and his lack of spot-up shooting), he’d be a spot higher already, and I do think he has an outside argument as the highest-peak player in NBA history.


Ben Taylor can't really be saying that his concern about LeBron's spot-up shooting means that 14 prime LeBron seasons brings his value down below 11 prime Jordan seasons...right?

What am I missing here?

I'm not interested in the GOAT debate. I don't have a GOAT, only a list of GOAT candidates. I'm only interested in understanding Ben Taylor's methodology.

I can't speak to Ben's state of mind.

I can say in the section you quoted and adjacent that there are allusions to adding the value of the 2018 season (moving LeBron ahead) and a graph showing no inclusion of 2018.

Thus it would seem to me you are probably looking at 13 prime LeBron seasons.

I considered mentioning not all "prime seasons" would be considered equal (and therefore that season count is a crude, first glance tool). Whilst that should go without saying it's somewhat pertinent that the excluded '95 was, for Ben, at the all-star/all-nba fringe, above LeBron's '05. So depending where one cuts off the relevance line, he might have given LeBron another one less season (beyond not integrating a partial'18), Jordan one more (if he we're forced to draw that line -- it could be argued any such line is arbitrary).

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:55 pm
by LukaTheGOAT
Besides Ben not including the 2018-season, he also does era-adjusted longevity. So 13 seasons of prime play during Jordan's time is more impressive than 13 seasons during Lebron's time (all things equal), as star player careers are longer now.

It's why for example, LBJ surpassed Kareem in actual CORP in 2019 but didn't actually pass him on his GOAT list until after the 2020 season. The era-adjustment gives some more credit to earlier players, as it is expected it is easier to play for longer now with modern-day medicine, etc.

Read on Twitter

Re: A question about Ben Taylor's methodology

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:38 am
by Chronz
He's comparing his portability to Nash, not MJ in that quote. MJ is even more portable than Bron